shirk to shrink from texas s challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions. i doubt the court let alone the country is prepared for them. joining us now, nyu law professor alissa murray who clerked and judged with sonja society myer. dan hilemon and gold nanoare back with us. melissa, vigilanteism was ushered in. the state wasn t the enforcer. it was the work around, whatever you refer to it as in law school. and all abortions after six weeks would be banned. what does this ruling do? these were concerned with
loud and the notion that states rights, that states will be allowed to in willy-nilly way full my the role of the federal government. that s a old song in america. and you put those two things together, we tone care about precedent anymore and states can just toss the federal government aside, that s what she s that is a dangerous that s when you think about what does that mean for american society going forward. it is a very, very different looking america than any america we grew up in. dan, last word. there are a couple of things that interest me. one that chief justice roberts joined in that sentiment and very concerned as he has generally been. that s a little bit different than justice sotomayor doing it as well. but i think from a practical standpoint what the court did today is first of all, they haven t stayed this law pending
not but these are just opinions. they are opinions, therefore that have no weight. they are not the law. that really runs straight up against what the previously historically conservative view of the court was was that stare decisis and press department was the law. rate. and when you had settles law for 50 years, in a 7-2 decision and 50 years of women have built their lives, families lives, reproductive lives around settled law, it had force of its own. that effectively was the law going forward. if you just start treating opinions as if they are willie gossmer, right, it is a thing that contributes to the politicization of the court because we could turn over every precedent at any given moment if the court s composition changes. she is now standing next to roberts, she go saying it out
don t get laws like sb on 8 until you gerrymandered your district to a point where those who oppose don t have a voice. the court has essentially insulated itself by making it harder for individuals in this country to vote. melissa s point she s too elegant to make this more harshly, but it s on us for separating these threads out. they are all the same story. and there really were never two sides to this. there was one president who didn t hijack the republican party. they ran to him. they glommed onto him. and he said, do not believe your ice, do not believe your ears in early 2017 at the beginning of his presidency. and here we are and 40% of the
the broef that said these opinions are afterall just opinions was written by two conservative lawyers. john is the architect of texas sb 8 and the private enforcement regime that essentially insulated this law from being enjaned, stopped from going into effect. she s making the point that these two have effectively allowed the court s decisions and the constitutional lights that the court has long protected to be nullified. that s exactly what happened in the antebellum period leading up to the civil law where states said we are not going to follow the federal law, the missouri compromise, we are going to do what we want with regard to slavery. she s making the point that this was an existential crisis for the supreme court. what s the point the supreme court saying what the law is if states are free to do what they want? here the court has allowed the states to continue doing exactly what it wants. we talked last time you were